Anyone thinking of Africa?
- Thread starter tusker
- Start date
Hanechdene
Well-Known Member
Also South African Airways have a sale on till 25 September
I think of Africa all the time.
tusker
Well-Known Member
Me too, going back in 2020 just cant wait. I keep looking at photos from previous African trips but it just makes things worse.I think of Africa all the time.
Tusker
probably because they took the land from somebody else in the first place...
EMcC
Well-Known Member
The land was barren or laid to waste before the white farmers cultivated it and improved the lotof the locals.
EMcC
Well-Known Member
We can't change history but we can learn from it and improve things.
Before the white farmers it was nothing but with their knowledge and equipment the land thrived and benefitted everybody, even those employed by the white farmers. Improved water supply, electricity, schools and transport plus more food was produced.
The bread basket that it was is now a begging bowl.
Before the white farmers it was nothing but with their knowledge and equipment the land thrived and benefitted everybody, even those employed by the white farmers. Improved water supply, electricity, schools and transport plus more food was produced.
The bread basket that it was is now a begging bowl.
Last edited:
Fisheruk100
Well-Known Member
Puts our roads into perspective. The main dirt road was impassable and this was the diversion. 2.5 miles out of Kigali. One of my journeys last month.
https://image.ibb.co/hY3iFU/8_ED388_C7_C180_4_C5_B_A22_C_B1_E3_AD20_B341.jpg
https://image.ibb.co/hY3iFU/8_ED388_C7_C180_4_C5_B_A22_C_B1_E3_AD20_B341.jpg
The ancestors of those who now rule South Africa were nowhere near the place when Europeans started to make something of the country. What happened with the ANC voting people, now in South Africa is going to happen in Europe with the migration that's going on. They intend to breed themselves to a majority, and our social benefit system will finance it.
goathunter1
Well-Known Member
I tend to find the rand/pound rate doesn’t help as we - or is it only me?-have to pay for the hunts in US dollars. OK the tips can be in rand. But what else? I remember years ago buying knives, clothing, rifle slings, whatever. Once you’ve got it, you’ve got it. Nowadays I hardly seem to spend anything. Maybe that’s because I’m hunting Eland all the time. And I do mean all the time!
Paid for my last one in Euros and it will be the same on this one so it’s still good news compared to May when I was out there, plus all the tips etc are done direct in Rand. While we have seen the pound drop you don’t have to talk to many South Africans for long before they remind you where the Rand was 10/15 years ago!
sikamalc
Administrator
Do people honestly believe that the white farmers or their fore fathers took the land every time?
Look back far enough in South African history. The Zulus were pastoralists and migrated form the north and colonised SA. Pushing the San people out, and displacing them who are the true people of SA. If you go back far enough in time who are you going to blame?
SA is a modern country, perfectly capable of supporting itself to a certain extent. Unlike many other African countries it has been relatively conflict free for many years, unlike the Congo, Nigeria, Zimbabwe to name but a few. This recent development is nothing more than tribal theft in my opinion. Taking back land that will no doubt be turned into a desert again, game will be slaughtered and after the short gain they will make, it will be worthless.
Why they cant run a democratic free countries in Africa is something I don't think they will every accomplish. Both black and white need to live and work together to build a society that they can ALL be proud of.
Look back far enough in South African history. The Zulus were pastoralists and migrated form the north and colonised SA. Pushing the San people out, and displacing them who are the true people of SA. If you go back far enough in time who are you going to blame?
SA is a modern country, perfectly capable of supporting itself to a certain extent. Unlike many other African countries it has been relatively conflict free for many years, unlike the Congo, Nigeria, Zimbabwe to name but a few. This recent development is nothing more than tribal theft in my opinion. Taking back land that will no doubt be turned into a desert again, game will be slaughtered and after the short gain they will make, it will be worthless.
Why they cant run a democratic free countries in Africa is something I don't think they will every accomplish. Both black and white need to live and work together to build a society that they can ALL be proud of.
EMcC
Well-Known Member
I didn't expect my post to go so far off Piste, neither did Mark I expect 
but my point is that under white colonial rule, I must admit, there were lots of injustices taken place but, yes another but, until white colonial rule, the country was known as the Black Continent and still being discovered.
Once it was taken over by white farmers, not always British I might add, it became a very prosperous, developed, country and improved the lot of the indigenous people already there.
Now the country, some of it, is being taken over by the local people and the white farmers being killed, raped and forced into poverty, the country is no longer managed or stands any chance of remaining prosperous.
I think this subject ought to end here and get back on track to Mark's original post which I suspect was intended to refer to Hunting Safaris
I think I might have already mentioned the time when a couple were sat around the dinner table having just come back from a trip over there, still drinking Gin and Tonic to keep their immune system on track from their recent trip to Africa !
The lady asked each of us in turn around the table if we had been and what we had hunted and got various answers.
When she came to me I said " No I hadn't been other than with the military but my brother had"
She then said " oh what did he hunt and was he successful ?
My reply was " oh yes very successful"
She then asked again "what was he hunting" my reply was " the Mau Mau" she finally shut up then
but my point is that under white colonial rule, I must admit, there were lots of injustices taken place but, yes another but, until white colonial rule, the country was known as the Black Continent and still being discovered.Once it was taken over by white farmers, not always British I might add, it became a very prosperous, developed, country and improved the lot of the indigenous people already there.
Now the country, some of it, is being taken over by the local people and the white farmers being killed, raped and forced into poverty, the country is no longer managed or stands any chance of remaining prosperous.
I think this subject ought to end here and get back on track to Mark's original post which I suspect was intended to refer to Hunting Safaris
I think I might have already mentioned the time when a couple were sat around the dinner table having just come back from a trip over there, still drinking Gin and Tonic to keep their immune system on track from their recent trip to Africa !
The lady asked each of us in turn around the table if we had been and what we had hunted and got various answers.
When she came to me I said " No I hadn't been other than with the military but my brother had"
She then said " oh what did he hunt and was he successful ?
My reply was " oh yes very successful"
She then asked again "what was he hunting" my reply was " the Mau Mau" she finally shut up then
Last edited:
Just to add to Malc's post above, I lifted the following very well written piece from another website so, with my thanks to the original author, Russ Gould, below is an excellent summary of the situation, IMO:
"South Africa has not been a colony of Britain since May 31, 1910. That would mean that even if you are on your last legs, you, your father, and probably your grandfather were never subject to colonial rule.
From 1910 to 1931 Great Britain retained loose control over South Africa through an appointed Governor General but it was run by an elected Parliament. In 1931 even the weak controls retained by Britain went by the wayside. In 1961 the country became a Republic.
Futhermore, only the Cape and Natal were ever colonies. The Transvaal and the Free State were Republics. The blacks have little claim at all to the land in the Cape, as it was never settled by blacks, and most of the land in Natal that was traditionally occupied by the Zulus ("Zululand") was made into a black homeland "Kwazulu" under Apartheid. That meant the white farmers in Zululand were forced off their farms by the Nationalist (Afrikaner) government and handed over to the Zulu King. Do they now get their land back?
Adding to the irony, most of today's farmers are Afrikaners (aka Boers) whose ancestors resisted and even went to war with Britain to throw off colonial ties. So to equate them with colonialism is just a "Mugabe-ism". "Colonial" is a euphemism for "white" in African politics.
What the ANC likes to bring up is the Natives Land Act of 1913, stating that this displaced blacks off "their land". In fact, this act decreed that whites were not allowed to buy land from natives and vice versa. That stopped white farmers from buying more native land. Exceptions had to be approved by the Governor-General. The native areas left initially totaled less than 10% of the entire land mass of the Union, which was later expanded to 13%. The Act further prohibited the practice of serfdom or sharecropping. (Slavery was abolished in the Cape Colony in 1834 and was never legal in the rest of what is now RSA). It also protected existing agreements or arrangement of land hired or leased by both parties.
What the ANC ignores is the role of the Zulu tribe in the land issue. In the first two decades of the 19th century, the Zulu people grew in power and expanded their territory under their leader, Shaka. Shaka's warfare indirectly led to the Mfecane ("crushing"), in which 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 people were killed and the inland plature was devastated and depopulated in the early 1820s. An offshoot of the Zulu, the Matabele people created a larger empire that included large parts of the highveld under their king Mzilikazi. The Matabele were later chased out of South Africa to Zimbabwe, where they are now a disempowered political minority. So one could argue that a good portion of the land in South Africa actually belongs to people now living in Zimbabwe, and not to South African blacks at all. And almost all of the Cape and some of KZ Natal belongs to the San people by these arguments.
What they also ignore is the fact that 90% of the blacks alive today would probably not be alive, had the white man not brought law and order, penicillin and quinine to South Africa.
What is "dividing the nation" are the recent laws, policies and rhetoric of the ANC, which specify different treatment according to race; constantly refer to the "formerly advantaged", the "former racist regime", the "former apartheid regime"; sing songs about killing Boers with machine guns; consistently disparage whites and whiteness; and seek to make the white minority in South Africa insignificant second class citizens. The EFF, a more radical political party, wants whites to meet a more grisly end.
As in the case of Zimbabwe, the ANC knows that the way to make the white man an insignificant historical footnote is to take their land. Kind of like the early days in the USA, where killing the buffalo was used to crush the red man.
In the final analysis, as Mao Zedong stated, power comes out of the barrel of a gun. An important corollary to that law is that the most fecund racial group has more guns."
Food for thought, perhaps?.
Peter
"South Africa has not been a colony of Britain since May 31, 1910. That would mean that even if you are on your last legs, you, your father, and probably your grandfather were never subject to colonial rule.
From 1910 to 1931 Great Britain retained loose control over South Africa through an appointed Governor General but it was run by an elected Parliament. In 1931 even the weak controls retained by Britain went by the wayside. In 1961 the country became a Republic.
Futhermore, only the Cape and Natal were ever colonies. The Transvaal and the Free State were Republics. The blacks have little claim at all to the land in the Cape, as it was never settled by blacks, and most of the land in Natal that was traditionally occupied by the Zulus ("Zululand") was made into a black homeland "Kwazulu" under Apartheid. That meant the white farmers in Zululand were forced off their farms by the Nationalist (Afrikaner) government and handed over to the Zulu King. Do they now get their land back?
Adding to the irony, most of today's farmers are Afrikaners (aka Boers) whose ancestors resisted and even went to war with Britain to throw off colonial ties. So to equate them with colonialism is just a "Mugabe-ism". "Colonial" is a euphemism for "white" in African politics.
What the ANC likes to bring up is the Natives Land Act of 1913, stating that this displaced blacks off "their land". In fact, this act decreed that whites were not allowed to buy land from natives and vice versa. That stopped white farmers from buying more native land. Exceptions had to be approved by the Governor-General. The native areas left initially totaled less than 10% of the entire land mass of the Union, which was later expanded to 13%. The Act further prohibited the practice of serfdom or sharecropping. (Slavery was abolished in the Cape Colony in 1834 and was never legal in the rest of what is now RSA). It also protected existing agreements or arrangement of land hired or leased by both parties.
What the ANC ignores is the role of the Zulu tribe in the land issue. In the first two decades of the 19th century, the Zulu people grew in power and expanded their territory under their leader, Shaka. Shaka's warfare indirectly led to the Mfecane ("crushing"), in which 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 people were killed and the inland plature was devastated and depopulated in the early 1820s. An offshoot of the Zulu, the Matabele people created a larger empire that included large parts of the highveld under their king Mzilikazi. The Matabele were later chased out of South Africa to Zimbabwe, where they are now a disempowered political minority. So one could argue that a good portion of the land in South Africa actually belongs to people now living in Zimbabwe, and not to South African blacks at all. And almost all of the Cape and some of KZ Natal belongs to the San people by these arguments.
What they also ignore is the fact that 90% of the blacks alive today would probably not be alive, had the white man not brought law and order, penicillin and quinine to South Africa.
What is "dividing the nation" are the recent laws, policies and rhetoric of the ANC, which specify different treatment according to race; constantly refer to the "formerly advantaged", the "former racist regime", the "former apartheid regime"; sing songs about killing Boers with machine guns; consistently disparage whites and whiteness; and seek to make the white minority in South Africa insignificant second class citizens. The EFF, a more radical political party, wants whites to meet a more grisly end.
As in the case of Zimbabwe, the ANC knows that the way to make the white man an insignificant historical footnote is to take their land. Kind of like the early days in the USA, where killing the buffalo was used to crush the red man.
In the final analysis, as Mao Zedong stated, power comes out of the barrel of a gun. An important corollary to that law is that the most fecund racial group has more guns."
Food for thought, perhaps?.
Peter
